Strengths of 2D games
Author
I just saw a thread talking about 2D games, and how they were a dying breed, so I was wondering, what strengths do 2D games have over 3D games.
The few that I can come up with are:
-More intuitive controls (It's far less likely that a 2D game will have the "tank" controls of say, Resident Evil)
-Few, if any, camera issues
-Less costs (this is debatable, as quality sprite-work, I assume, is expensive)
So, what other strengths does a 2D game have over a 3D game?
Generally a 2D game can be made to run on lesser hardware, since all calculations are using one less dimension, and 2D graphics are usually less expensive (performance wise) than 3D.
Author
I guess I forgot to consider technical reasons for 2D being better, but one thing that I remember hearing, not too sure since I'm not up to date on console development, was that most of the consoles have a horrible time doing 2D.
Overall though, I wonder what gameplay advantages 2D holds over 3D, although technical reasons are a good point to consider.
Overall though, I wonder what gameplay advantages 2D holds over 3D, although technical reasons are a good point to consider.
Quote:Original post by Kaisel
I guess I forgot to consider technical reasons for 2D being better, but one thing that I remember hearing, not too sure since I'm not up to date on console development, was that most of the consoles have a horrible time doing 2D.
They might not be too hot on old-school style 2d (ie actually bliting sprites direct) but any modern 2d game will be using proper 3d acceleration anyway (ie. textured quads). That'll run blazingly fast on pretty much any current console (well, except the GBA, but thats got some very cool 2d hardware instead).
I sincerely believe that 2D games will always be around even though 3D games or applications have their place and play an undeniebale role in the industry!
I still love many old 2D games even if they're "dying"!
I still love many old 2D games even if they're "dying"!
2D supports almost any artistic style, easily, since it isn't nescesary to rationalize how it would appear in three dimensions or even bother with that being possible.
There was talk years ago of "voxels", but no 3D game has ever made terrain as deformable as what Lemmings or Worms had. Playing Clonk Planet now, I'm very pleased with the 2D format.
Having played the demo of Worms Mayhem, I can tell you that 2D is far easier to visualize for strategy or puzzles. Aiming a bazooka in 3D, with wind and little things sticking out of buildings and such, is hard on my parietal lobe. In 2D, that sort of thing is second nature.
There's a sense of solidity to 2D gaming. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I'm consistently infuriated by most 3D jumping puzzles (excepting Super Mario 64, which put heavy jumping sections in a 2D camera view). Look at the difference between 2D and 3D for Ninja Gaiden games. 2D was quick and easy, with walls factoring into strategy seamlessly. The new one requires such frenetic maneuvering that it's almost impossible to do well without a healthy dose of luck.
Sometimes, a game is better off being distilled into just two dimensions.
Having played the demo of Worms Mayhem, I can tell you that 2D is far easier to visualize for strategy or puzzles. Aiming a bazooka in 3D, with wind and little things sticking out of buildings and such, is hard on my parietal lobe. In 2D, that sort of thing is second nature.
There's a sense of solidity to 2D gaming. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I'm consistently infuriated by most 3D jumping puzzles (excepting Super Mario 64, which put heavy jumping sections in a 2D camera view). Look at the difference between 2D and 3D for Ninja Gaiden games. 2D was quick and easy, with walls factoring into strategy seamlessly. The new one requires such frenetic maneuvering that it's almost impossible to do well without a healthy dose of luck.
Sometimes, a game is better off being distilled into just two dimensions.
I still love 2d games like the first civilization and also colonisation. Soldat is also in 2D using 3D and is a really addictive game.
3D development is realistic to a point where the developer doesn't need to figure out how this or that representation should be 'emulated', and instead just literally builds the world and throws objects into it.
It also offers a huge degree of flexibility. In my engine, I can add one animation resource (like swaying or limping), and have it work in conjunction with 20 action animations (walk, turn, run, get whacked) for any number of character shapes or outfits.
With that said, I will always prefer to look at sprites rather than polygons. Sprites have souls, but it's a pain in the ass building that soul. I didn't move on from 2D to 3D development because 3D sells, I moved on because the math curve is twenty times easier than drawing sprite images :P
It also offers a huge degree of flexibility. In my engine, I can add one animation resource (like swaying or limping), and have it work in conjunction with 20 action animations (walk, turn, run, get whacked) for any number of character shapes or outfits.
With that said, I will always prefer to look at sprites rather than polygons. Sprites have souls, but it's a pain in the ass building that soul. I didn't move on from 2D to 3D development because 3D sells, I moved on because the math curve is twenty times easier than drawing sprite images :P
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
